Stallion Cornell's Moist Blog
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
I submitted the following comment on Stallion's post:
"It was a great idea. And it didn't work." [The "It" here is the Mormon's United Order that failed.]
No, it wasn't a great idea and that's why it didn't work. It wasn't a great idea, because it was centralized rather than truly from the bottom up and then from the top down also (level), the only right alternative that you conveniently overlooked. As for people in the church deciding to keep their own so-called wealth, how could they remain in the church if Jesus calls for the Church to share all? The individuals were not "the Church." The church was top down. It was central planning only if the characterization is accurate here in this post. That's not in the spirit of the least being the first. It's antichrist.
When the people are the Church (members are the Church) and they decide by consensus agreeing to abide by the decision of the whole (be one) guided by the divine law as spoken by Jesus, that's the spirit that doesn't fail. Starting off with something else (falsehood) dooms it to failure.
Also, according to the things cited about the "United Order," ("preserved a measure of private property ownership"), their hearts were not entirely in it from the start.
Stallion Cornell, you wrote, "Communitarian living is the divine ideal, but it only works when governed by divine principles. When a perfect person is the one who decides how resources are distributed without bias or self-interest, and everyone is in the order voluntarily and participating wholeheartedly, than a United Order works perfectly." You see here that you are assuming a perfect person (one person) rather than the whole community doing what they did in the first generation of Christians. None took excessively. Each looked out for all, the one, the whole. When you get the Church together, they ask themselves, what's best for each and all. Who among them then wants what is selfish? None does.
What happened to James and the others? James was martyred. He was martyred by those who sought to suppress the religion. Is that failure on the part of the religion, or is it failure on the part of the murderers? I say the murderers are the failures.
Now, here's the truth. Winston Churchill's observation is not analogous, because communism is working amongst the Hutterites for example. They've shown that it works and works very well. There are no Hutterite adults without when any Hutterite adult has enough. (I single out the adults, because I don't doubt for a minute that the Hutterite adults would all self-sacrifice for the children.) That's far closer to the Kingdom than U.S. capitalism. Others have shown that it works as well. There are many successful communes in the world. There are many successful religious orders. I have a long list of them on my site.
Finally, you are arguing against communism as if Soviet Russia was genuinely communist. It was not. The top lived in luxury and splendor. They were rich in mammon. Brezhnev had a foreign sports car collection that billionaires envied. If you are going to defeat the idea of real communism, you have to defeat the idea of Christ Jesus. Defeating militant Marxism-Leninism is not defeating the idea of communism. It is defeating the idea of a one-party, violent, totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat that wasn't even that. It was a cover for the elitists at the top such as Stalin and Mao who didn't have a real communist bone in their bodies.
Your tactic is the straw man. You set up what is easily refuted and speak as if you've proven that Christians aren't called to live communistically when they most certainly are.
As for not having fear of reprisal from the government of the United States for speaking out against it, obviously you've never been clubbed or otherwise abused by the government for speaking out against it, peaceably speaking or not, advocating no violence or not. Obviously you are ignoring those in the United States who are calling for more and more curtailment of freedom of political speech, Newt Gingrich for instance being a prime example.
The U.S. has a long history of suppressing free political speech. It revs up fear and then uses the fabricated boogeyman as an excuse to clamp down on those who would speak out against capitalism for instance when those who speak out begin to convince others with sound reasoning, tight logic, and historically demonstrable and verifiable facts rather than just echoing false propaganda from think tanks funded by the plutocrats (corporatists, world bankers, usurers; the very moneychangers Jesus cleans from the worshipful house of God). When those speaking out start pointing to Jesus as the living example, then the self-authorized coercive ones really become nervous that the people might follow, just as the murdering Pharisees worried about Jesus.
Jesus is a communist. He is an extremist and radical. He is not right or left on the false ideological spectrum once craftily designed to be thought-terminating. It is being exposed however. You'd be wise to come down on the side of Jesus on this.
God bless all with the truth,
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)